We don't need to "pause" anything, and we never "go back" to anything. Each event is resolved in turn, completely, before moving on.

Perhaps this is just a bit of terminology difference, but this is exactly what happens.

When the condition for an ability is met, you stop the normal flow, do whatever that ability was, and then pick it back up. You look at it as inserting events, but isn't that pausing the normal flow (i.e. what would come next if the ability hadn't triggered) to resolve the ability, and then going back to that normal flow once it's done?

You're flattening it out, but as a software engineer, to me it's a subroutine. It's exactly the same thing.

I simply don't agree with that statement. I have stated the reason you can't continue is not the "Immediately" it's the fact that Gunner ends the current Attack and starts a new one. This is matched by every other part of the game.

As KO stated you work through the sequence and never go back. Once resolving an Attack you have a place for cards that say "after attacking" to slot in, once you have moved on from this by for example starting another Attack or moving to the next Fighter you can't go back to the "after attack step" of the previous Attack. The time for that is gone.

It's just like you can't put a FCS target lock in the queue, then Attack again using your current target lock, then resolve the FCS from the 1st Attack now you don't have a target lock on your ship. The chance for that has gone, but you could use FCS on the second attack as you are now in the "after attacking" step for that attack.

We don't need to "pause" anything, and we never "go back" to anything. Each event is resolved in turn, completely, before moving on.

Perhaps this is just a bit of terminology difference, but this is exactly what happens.

When the condition for an ability is met, you stop the normal flow, do whatever that ability was, and then pick it back up. You look at it as inserting events, but isn't that pausing the normal flow (i.e. what would come next if the ability hadn't triggered) to resolve the ability, and then going back to that normal flow once it's done?

You're flattening it out, but as a software engineer, to me it's a subroutine. It's exactly the same thing.

But you don't ever go back. You get to a step, you stop to use card abilities, you then continue the turn. For example you finish an Attack, you start the "after attacking" step, once you finish you don't go back to the orginal Attack, you move on to the next Attack or the next Fighter.

Every other ability in the game, when completed, returns you to the same spot in the process which you were at when that ability was activated. Rebel Captive? Back to Select a Target. Spend a focus token? Back to Step 3. Push the Limit? Back to the end of your action step, or the after attacking step, or another ship's action step, depending on what gave you the first action. Lando isn't kicked out of his activation because someone else took an action.

There's really no reason to make an attack any different. It's an operation that's completed in steps, pretty much like anything else in the game. You finish it, you go back where you started, and any other abilities which are waiting will go off just fine.

I suspect we've reached the going-in-circles phase. If you don't see the game using a subroutine model, we're simply never going to agree. It actually does explain quite a lot, though.

Perhaps this is just a bit of terminology difference, but this is exactly what happens.

This, I believe, is the heart of why you and I disagree on this. You see a pause in the game, while several abilities are resolved. Several things are "triggered", you place ALL of them in a queue, resolve all of them, then go back to the regular sequence. Even if they haven't "finished" yet, they are waiting in a queue for their turn to resolve.

I just see a turn continuing on, and those abilities are resolved in whatever order the player decided to resolve them. While this may seem like a minor semantic distinction, the difference in context between the two conceptual frameworks can lead to some dramatically different "reads". If my ship was "supposed" to attack next, but got blown up, then it just doesn't attack. It does not have an attack waiting in a queue, to be resolved once we are done with the current attack.

That's not quite the case Buhallin, it's not that a card goes off and does something and then comes back. You get to the end of Attack, you enter the "after Attacking" step and you never leave it you just play one card ability after another till your finished and then move on to the next stage of the turn.

That's not quite the case Buhallin, it's not that a card goes off and does something and then comes back. You get to the end of Attack, you enter the "after Attacking" step and you never leave it you just play one card ability after another till your finished and then move on to the next stage of the turn.

Would you care to define the "after Attacking" step for me, then?

I think I see how you're approaching this, but you're making up a WHOLE lot of terminology in the process of doing so. If you can't explain your position based on terms which actually appear in the rules, I think there's a problem.

There are a collection of cards which all happen "After you perform an attack". So after you finish step 7 - Deal Damage , there must be a timing step before you move on where you can resolve these cards. You resolve each card in turn before moving on.

• Luke Skywalker (After you perform an attack that does not hit)
• Gunner (After you perform an attack that does not hit)

• Fire-Control System (After you perform an attack)

There are tonnes of these time stops and the game can add more at any time. They are not defined explicitly in the rules but are defined on the cards.

eg.

• When you reveal your maneuver dial
  • Adrenaline Rush
  • Seismic Charge
• At the start of the Activation Phase (Happens before you reveal your dial)
  • Intelligence Agent

At its most basic level if something happens it must have a timing step to happen in. Basic stuff all has timing periods defined in the rulebook. As soon as you add new things to the rules through cards, the cards themselves will define their timing steps, these will generally be before or after something that occurs in the standard flow of the game.

The one things card shouldn't be able to do is alter the core flow of the game. The game turn should always be

• Planning Phase
• Activation Phase - Ships take it in turns to
  • Reveal Dial
  • Set Template
  • Execute Maneuver
  • Check Pilot Stress
  • Clean Up
  • Perform Action
• Combat Phase - Ships take it in turns to
  • Declare Target
  • Roll Attack Dice
  • Modify Attack Dice
  • Roll Defense Dice
  • Modify Defense Dice
  • Compare Results
  • Deal Damage
• End Phase

You can slot things in between the steps, or even in between parts of the steps. But this core flow should not be disrupted

This is the issue with Gunner the way you were describing it.

• Combat Phase - Ships take it in turns to
  • Declare Target
  • Roll Attack Dice
  • Modify Attack Dice
  • Roll Defense Dice
  • Modify Defense Dice
  • Compare Results
  • Deal Damage
  • [After you perform an attack]
    • Gunner
      • Declare Target
      • Roll Attack Dice
      • Modify Attack Dice
      • Roll Defense Dice
      • Modify Defense Dice
      • Compare Results
      • Deal Damage
      • [After you perform an attack]
        • Fire-Control System
    • Fire-Control System

Which is breaking the Core Timing dynamic of the game. So unlikely to be correct. Something like the following is more likely to be correct as it keeps the Core Timing of the game rigid.

• Combat Phase - Ships take it in turns to
  • Declare Target
  • Roll Attack Dice
  • Modify Attack Dice
  • Roll Defense Dice
  • Modify Defense Dice
  • Compare Results
  • Deal Damage
  • [After you perform an attack]
    • Gunner
  • Declare Target
  • Roll Attack Dice
  • Modify Attack Dice
  • Roll Defense Dice
  • Modify Defense Dice
  • Compare Results
  • Deal Damage
  • [After you perform an attack]
    • Fire-Control System

Well, the first problem I see with that is that you seem to have overlooked the FAQ entry on the definition for "attack", which means you have the entire combat phase wrong - ships don't take turns to perform those steps, they take turns to perform an attack. This might also explain why you don't see "attack" as a functional process element just like target lock, but I'm not sure about that.

Beyond that, it's a very nice work of fiction that invents an entirely different set of rules from whole cloth. Good use of color, though.

<shrug> I know that comes off as dismissive, and probably harsher than I mean it to be, but there's literally no basis in the X-wing rules for about 80% of what you write there. As near as I can tell, your entire structure is based on the rules from other games. One of my guiding principles when forced to reverse engineer rules is that you do it to the minimum rule set which is required to make things function in a reasonable manner. You're so far beyond that we're not even talking the same language.

Can you cite something - anything - from the X-wing rules that support the "rigid core timing" principle you're trying to introduce?

<shrug> I know that comes off as dismissive, and probably harsher than I mean it to be, but there's literally no basis in the X-wing rules for about 80% of what you write there.

How did you arrive at this number? Scientific survey, poll or access to matetials you dont have unless you work for ffg?

Or because you disagree with 80%? Which means your now saying your 100% correct?

I dont mean to be harsh or challenge you its the fact your quoting percentages with out giving supportive evidence.

How did you arrive at this number? Scientific survey, poll or access to matetials you dont have unless you work for ffg?

Or because you disagree with 80%? Which means your now saying your 100% correct?

I dont mean to be harsh or challenge you its the fact your quoting percentages with out giving supportive evidence.

Well, I did say "about" And please: you're, and it's.

But what the heck, let's have some gloves-off fun. Quoting:

- At its most basic level if something happens it must have a timing step to happen in. ("timing step": No basis in rules. The term appears nowhere ever)

- Basic stuff all has timing periods defined in the rulebook (Distinction of "basic stuff": no basis in rules. What's "basic" and what's "advanced"? Citation for distinction, please)

- As soon as you add new things to the rules through cards, the cards themselves will define their timing steps (Card-defined timing steps: No basis in rules. Same problem as above.)

- these will generally be before or after something that occurs in the standard flow of the game. (ignores the very common "when" abilities: Some basis in rules, but a shallow and incomplete analysis)

- The one things card shouldn't be able to do is alter the core flow of the game. (A statement which is absolutely foundational to his point. No basis in rules. Really, there's just nothing that says this. Anywhere. At all. If FFG came out with a card that said "After attacking, end the combat phase with no other ships able to fire." it would be perfectly legal.)

- The game turn should always be... (assuming it's a starting point rather than absolute, fair point)

- *Game turn steps* (Accurate, assuming we change the Combat Phase to match the FAQ)

- You can slot things in between the steps, or even in between parts of the steps. But this core flow should not be disrupted (Whoops, there's the absolute... No basis in rules. Again, absolutely nothing that says this. Although, ironically, I believe his proposed ordering for Gunner does just as much to disrupt the "core flow", if not more, than mine.)

You're right - 80% was way off. Should have been closer to 87.5%, by my count. My humblest apologies for the inaccurate estimation. I should have said that 87.5% had no basis in actual rules. It's worth pointing out at this point that if you're going to offer off-the-wall interpretations of rules, it's kinda on you to provide citations for that.

You were, of course, welcome to offer actual rules support for his position. But trollish snark was a far better use of all our time.

But, again, what the heck - it's late and I'm dealing with insomnia, so let's consider his core, primary premise: That card abilities cannot alter the core flow of the steps. The lack of a counterexample won't prove this, but a solid counterexample will disprove it. Let's consider:

- Overlapping an obstacle causes you to skip your Perform Action step. That's modifying the core flow.

Overlapping's a rule, not a card ability, so it's allowed to modify the core flow while a card is not? I don't tend to think there's a difference there, but fine:

- Ion token. Causes you to skip your Planning Phase, and your Reveal Dial step. That's modifying the core flow.

Hm, you say you don't actually skip either phase/step, you just don't get to do anything during them? And the Ion Token rules appear on an inset, not on an upgrade card, so they're core rules not abilities. Okay, fair point. Let's try:

- Advanced Sensors: Skip your Perform Action Step.

So: Ability? Check. Provided by an upgrade card? Check. Modifies core flow? Check. And, I think, mate. Solid example of a card modifying the core flow, which counters the assertion that the core flow cannot be modified by cards.

I'm pretty sure that brings the entire well-colored post, and every premise in it, crashing down. I'm going to bed.

<mic drop>

OK then answer this simple question. When does playing Fire-Control System happen? Tell me what stage of the game sequence it happens in if there is not a timing slot after Step 7 of the Combat Phase for is to happen in?

You state that my version of Gunner does more to distrupt flow than yours. Can you state why this is?

Can you also state for me why skipping a step is disrupting the core flow? 3 still comes after 1 even if your skipping 2. At no point is the flow going back to a previous Attack to finish it off, could you state for me where it says in the rules you can go back to a previous Attack?

Can you cite something - anything - from the X-wing rules that support the "rigid core timing" principle you're trying to introduce?

p5: "X-Wing is played over a series of game rounds. During each game round, players perform the following four phases in order "
p7: "resolve the following steps in order "
p10: "players resolve the following combat steps in order "

If FFG came out with a card that said "After attacking, end the combat phase with no other ships able to fire." it would be perfectly legal.)

This is the definition of a Strawman argument. You can't create a fictional card which say something and then say, because this fictional card exists it disproves what you said.

You have done it multiple times before and I haven't called you up on it. But it's considered very bad practice when debating something.

"timing step": No basis in rules. The term appears nowhere ever

If something appears in the English language does it also need to appear in the Rules to have a meaning? This again is very sloppy debating practice, and something you do again and again in your arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use language to describe the Rules. Especially if you define what the language means in the post in question.

"There are a collection of cards which all happen "After you perform an attack". So after you finish step 7 - Deal Damage, there must be a timing step before you move on where you can resolve these cards."

Here I have stated for something to happen, it has to have some point in time where it happens, and have used the term timing step to define this point in time.

It is a constructed term that doesn't appear in the Rules, but it's been defined in the post itself.

However you don't seem to have any issue using words that don't appear in the Rules such as Interrupt , Conterspell or Trigger . Strangely all words that appear in Magic the Gathering .

You're suggesting that an interrupted effect changes that rule

Turning immediate abilities into counterspells has a huge impact on the design space that at worst I don't think has been fully considered, and at best is not something that's up to us to try and derive

I think that's why there's such difficulty with questions like "Why does Gunner interrupt but not Captive or R5-K6?" If we were starting from the rules and working towards the conclusion, those lines would be obvious.

One of your choices fits the rules we have. The other doesn't. The rules we have say that when the trigger is met, the ability activates. That's it.

Which I guess could explain why your trying to force the entire game into a MtG framework. though apparently you have never played the game.

Please stop talking about Magic? I don't play it, don't know it, and it really has no bearing on the discussion.

"Interrupt" is a pretty normal word, and I'm using it in its flat English meaning, not whatever specific meaning Magic gives it. "Counterspell" is a handy proxy for "ability that cancels another ability" - you knew what it meant, right? Did I ever at any point suggest that it did (or should) work the way a counterspell works, or leverage any of Magic's mechanics concerning counterspells? And, finally, "trigger" is also a pretty generic term for a set of conditions that have to be met. Have I tried to introduce any of Magic's rules concerning triggers? If I have, it's entirely incidental.

And I never said I'd NEVER played Magic - just not since about 1994 or so. As "gotchas" go, that whole effort was pretty weak.

Can you cite something - anything - from the X-wing rules that support the "rigid core timing" principle you're trying to introduce?

p5: "X-Wing is played over a series of game rounds. During each game round, players perform the following four phases in order "
p7: "resolve the following steps in order "
p10: "players resolve the following combat steps in order "

p20: "Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules."

If an ability changes the order, then an ability changes the order. You're trying to make it immutable, which just isn't.

This is the definition of a Strawman argument. You can't create a fictional card which say something and then say, because this fictional card exists it disproves what you said.

You misunderstand my purpose in the hypothetical cards. I use them to illustrate limitations in your suggested system. What we're doing here is trying to derive an underlying framework for how the rules work. If your framework can't handle a broad range of possible abilities, then it's got an issue.

If something appears in the English language does it also need to appear in the Rules to have a meaning? This again is very sloppy debating practice, and something you do again and again in your arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use language to describe the Rules. Especially if you define what the language means in the post in question.

"There are a collection of cards which all happen "After you perform an attack". So after you finish step 7 - Deal Damage, there must be a timing step before you move on where you can resolve these cards."

Here I have stated for something to happen, it has to have some point in time where it happens, and have used the term timing step to define this point in time.

It is a constructed term that doesn't appear in the Rules, but it's been defined in the post itself.

Common-language shorthand is fine. I use trigger as a shorthand for "abilities...resolved when specified on the card".

But you're inventing the term, and the concept, and then using it to justify rulings. If you want to call it a "time step", fine, but when you start saying things like "Once you're outside the time step you miss your opportunity to use an ability" it's a pretty major rules statement that should be grounded back to the actual rules, and not in your self-made definition.

OK then answer this simple question. When does playing Fire-Control System happen? Tell me what stage of the game sequence it happens in if there is not a timing slot after Step 7 of the Combat Phase for is to happen in?

You state that my version of Gunner does more to distrupt flow than yours. Can you state why this is?

Can you also state for me why skipping a step is disrupting the core flow? 3 still comes after 1 even if your skipping 2. At no point is the flow going back to a previous Attack to finish it off, could you state for me where it says in the rules you can go back to a previous Attack?

I've actually answered that first question, and recently - if you can stalk my past enough to pull up the Magic comment, I'm sure you could find that too. And you really should read the FAQ, "Step 7 of the Combat Phase" has no meaning any more. The full steps of the combat phase are now "ships perform one attack". The steps given are no longer for the Combat Phase, they're for an attack.

If you were going to hold to explicit steps, subroutining into another operation leaves the basic steps intact in a way that repeating them doesn't. This is a concept that's probably unfamiliar to non-software designers, though, so let's just call it a difference of viewpoint.

I honestly can't - it's your system, after all. I had assumed that you'd consider skipping a step to be disruptive to the core flow, since presumably the instructions to complete all those steps in order means you have to actually do all of them. "Resolve the following steps in order" - why would the "in order" part be so immutable, when the "resolve the following steps" part wasn't? <shrug> But if you're going to define it all the way down to just order and nothing else, then yeah, skipping a step doesn't break your (increasingly arbitrary) rule.

And again you don't actually answer any of the questions asked, just use hyperbole.

Creating a card purposely designed to break the system, breaks the system. It is a Strawman argument.

You have not stated when Fire-Control System is meant to resolve. Just pointed out the 7 steps are for an Attack. Classic deflection.

You have not stated why you are allowed to go back to a previous Attack. Why you skip a step is obvious, it's stated directly on the card. Going back to a previous attack is explicitly stated no-where in the rules. Can you state where it says you can do it in the rules. If a card does not directly alter the timing order in the game then the core rules should stand.

Apparently you are allowed to use language that is common parlance such as Interrupt, Trigger, Counterspell, but the term Timing Step, which is fairly common in a lot of games can't be used to describe something that acts in a similar way in this game? I see double standards here.

Until you can actually state examples, quote rules or even answer basic questions about your stance. I think it's fairly flimsy.

I have at least stated where it says you carry out the game steps in order. I have at least pointed out where it is on the card it states "after performing a successful attack" to explain why there must be a place for these cards to resolve. I have multiple rulings that back up my stance. You have been wrong on almost every ruling, why haven't you went back and looked at why you might be wrong, rather than just claim that every ruling that disagrees with you must be a fringe case, work differently to everything else or FFG getting it wrong.

And yet, your opinion is completely incompatible with software programming of any sort. If you execute a subroutine, and that subroutine changes the value of a variable, then the new value is used from that point on. This is exactly what everybody has been trying to get through to you. Subroutines do not "pause" anything. The computer executes functions one at a time, in a continuous flow moving from one time stop to another, and never, ever, "goes back".

For example, let's say we have values for "Dial" or "Pilot Skill" or, in this case "Defender". When you execute the subroutine "Gunner", it returns a new value for "Defender". If you were to then execute the subroutine "Fire Control System" it would use the new value for "Defender". Just like "Fett" and/or "Navigator" look for and change the current value of "Dial" regardless of what it used to be. And Swarm Tactics uses the new value of "Pilot Skill".

You claim not to be a magic player, and certainly gave the impression you had never played, but your mindset, terminology, and understanding are completely compatible with someone who learned everything they know about gaming from MtG and cannot conceive of alternatives. You claim to be a programmer, yet your methodology is completely incompatible with computer programming of any sort.

"Counterspell" is a handy proxy for "ability that cancels another ability" - you knew what it meant, right?

That you have been watching to many Harry Potter films?

Or do you know something we dont? Like the new a wing pilot is called Harry with a unique ability to go hocus pocus and make the death star turn into a rabbit?

The word counterspell means a spell or charm that counteracts another spell or charm. Do we have spells in x wing?

KO, there is a programming instruction that is pretty common called "goto." It sends the computer to a specific point in the code -- it could be later, it could be back to the top. So saying programs can't ever go back is incorrect.

Also, programs can use variables in ways you aren't considering. Defender would be a local variable within the Attack function (or subroutine). As such, when Gunner causes Attack to be called from with itself, there are two separate Defender variables coexisting without conflict -- one for each instance of Attack.

It's also perfectly valid to call functions using a copy of the variable (default functionality in C) so the original is not modified. You assume a program is going to pass the pointer to the variable through and will always change the original. That is not standard in programming.

I might post once per page the same thing.

This conversation is going no where. If admins are around they should close it because you guys are getting no where. Moving further and further from the issue with more and more irrelevent arguments about semantics not related to the topic of discussion.

Take a day off, consider the facts and create and argument which can be stated in less than 200 words.

And yet, your opinion is completely incompatible with software programming of any sort. If you execute a subroutine, and that subroutine changes the value of a variable, then the new value is used from that point on. This is exactly what everybody has been trying to get through to you. Subroutines do not "pause" anything. The computer executes functions one at a time, in a continuous flow moving from one time stop to another, and never, ever, "goes back".

...

You claim to be a programmer, yet your methodology is completely incompatible with computer programming of any sort.

Well, first off, I'm the author of Armies of Immoren (which had about 30K users before I stopped supporting it when Warmachine went to MkII) and Fighting Forces of the Reconquest, which is still actively supporting the Dropzone Commander community. So my ability to develop software is quite proven.

I think you're so wrapped up in the idea of proving me wrong you're intentionally misreading my words. So let's try code.

public void printStuff() {
    System.out.println("A");
    printB();
    System.out.println("C");
}
public void printB() {
    System.out.println("B");
}
Output:
A
B
C

When you call printB it "pauses" the execution of printStuff at that point while printB executes, and then "goes back" to right where it was, and picks up with the next instruction in line, which will print C. It doesn't say "Well, it's too late to print C now, so I guess the output is just A and B". That's basic subroutine logic. It may or may not be correct for X-wing, and I'll freely admit that if it turns out that it isn't, my entire foundation for understanding these rules explodes in a very pretty mushroom cloud full of "I told you so's". But I haven't really seen much yet that convinces me it's wrong on a foundational level.

If you've got nothing better than to sink to calling me a liar and insulting my professional skills - which are easily supportable - you're just not worth it. Congratulations on crossing whatever line of civility might have been left around this place to delve into personal attacks on my real life.

@Drakhan: Don't mention goto <shudder>. I know what you're saying and it's a good point, but I haven't used a goto since I was like 12 Thanks for covering the local variable concept with regards to attacks, though, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make this entire time, I was just trying to avoid going to actual code concepts for it

200 Words or less.

Your interpretation of the rules is inconsistent with all previous rulings dealing with timing, specifically including Fettigator, Adrenaline Rush, and Swarm Tactics. The alternative presented is consistent with all previous rulings. The preponderance of evidence suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about.

KO wins the arguments by obeying the rules I made up!